Even the losses against the AI is in this circumstance magnitudes higher than what was historically inflicted. It just boggles my mind how the blizzard rule has never been revised when the axis withdrawal tactics clearly show that something is not right.

In fact it was. When the game was fresh and new the Germans were utterly trashed AND they were truly weak during spring (no Axis offensive madness).

Now you still can trash them, BUT no matter how hard you hit them (I am not thinking about destroyed units) they will be artificially inflated (think about any nasty substances every gym will offer you ) and come spring, summer they are able to launch offensives vs low moral Soviet units.

ORIGINAL: Klydon I think this is more of a result of current German tactics of typically stripping every extra unit out of the line (especially panzer forces) and sending them to Poland to serve as the core for a 1942 offensive. What is happening to the Germans on the front is not the fault of the game in this case. As Flaviusx mentions, you need some local reserves.

Sorry but I have to contest you on this. The reason why german players pull the units off the line is because of the blizzard rule, thus it is the fault of the game. Had the blizzard rule not had such an insane impact on the game then the german players would not evacuate units thus what the GHC players are doing is a symptom of an underlying problem, it is not the source of the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flaviusx Before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, I suggest taking it up a notch and playing against a veteran Axis opponent who actually knows how to manage the blizzard.

Well, you still have to remember that Pelton isn't the most experienced soviet player out there either so he could have done alot worse with a bit of experience with the blizzard offensive.

Only times I ever try to hold the line is against the AI which is mediocre at best and even that is costly. A blizzard vs normal soviet AI with me holding the line unlike the normal withdrawal tactics and so on usually leads to about 700-800k losses, out of that about 500k is from attrition alone (average 45k+ attrition, 12 turns = 540k) and the 700-800k is without losing any units at all as the AI is kind of sucky. If I tried to do the same versus an average soviet player I would easily lose 1M-1.12M instead while historically the germans lost approximately 50k troops per month dec41-mar42.

Even the losses against the AI is in this circumstance magnitudes higher than what was historically inflicted. It just boggles my mind how the blizzard rule has never been revised when the axis withdrawal tactics clearly show that something is not right.

I am not sure where you got the 50k troops average. My source puts the German losses between 1 Dec and 30 Apr at almost 85k average a month. If anything, the game does not cause enough material attrition on the Germans. By March 42, they had 150 operational tanks on the entire front and had lost massive amounts of vehicles, tractors, guns and other equipment. That is simply not replicated in game currently, especially given how much freedom of movement the Germans are given during the blizzard. (Much of the equipment casualties came when units had to abandon positions and could not move equipment to go with them).

Part of the issue that is tough for any game to replicate is the players know the history of what happen. The Germans showed no clue (or totally ignored) what would happen to them in terms of the blizzard and the effect it had on the army and airforce units in Russia. A German player is going to seek to circumvent the effects of the blizzard as much as possible because they know what happen in history. That means the tendency is to remove as many units from the theater as is practical to AVOID the effects of the blizzard simply because the player knows what those effects were. Overall, it can be helpful, but there can be a penalty to pay and that is by stripping the local reserves, you weaken your overall defense against the Russian offensive that you know to be coming.

Until the game progresses to the point that the German is not WELL rewarded with this type of strategy, then it is going to continue.

While I still say the game favours the Sov's I don't agree the Blizzard is as overpowered as what people are saying. The problem with a few recent games where the Blizzard O has been overwhelming is that the Axis did not do near enough damage in the summer of 41. If you have a crap summer campaign then you will and should get totally smashed up, unless ofcourse you do a 'Pelton'. People should stop blaming the Blizzard for their woes and work on improving their summer 41 game. And then work on an effective Blizzard defence. Its very doable if you have the desire and fortitude to do so.

I don't agree the Blizzard is as overpowered as what people are saying. The problem with a few recent games where the Blizzard O has been overwhelming is that the Axis did not do near enough damage in the summer of 41. If you have a crap summer campaign then you will and should get totally smashed up, unless ofcourse you do a 'Pelton'. People should stop blaming the Blizzard for their woes and work on improving their summer 41 game. And then work on an effective Blizzard defence. Its very doable if you have the desire and fortitude to do so.

In fact it was. When the game was fresh and new the Germans were utterly trashed AND they were truly weak during spring (no Axis offensive madness).

Now you still can trash them, BUT no matter how hard you hit them (I am not thinking about destroyed units) they will be artificially inflated (think about any nasty substances every gym will offer you ) and come spring, summer they are able to launch offensives vs low moral Soviet units.

I may misunderstand but are you saying the blizzard has been revised since the release as I have been unable to see any changes in the patch notes addressing it. If that is the case then please refer me to the section/patch where it was so that I am aware of the current state of the blizzard rule as I'm basically just aware of the rule as stated in the manual pre any changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon I am not sure where you got the 50k troops average. My source puts the German losses between 1 Dec and 30 Apr at almost 85k average a month. If anything, the game does not cause enough material attrition on the Germans. By March 42, they had 150 operational tanks on the entire front and had lost massive amounts of vehicles, tractors, guns and other equipment. That is simply not replicated in game currently, especially given how much freedom of movement the Germans are given during the blizzard. (Much of the equipment casualties came when units had to abandon positions and could not move equipment to go with them).

I assume the 85k average your source posts are including wounded as my 50k avg source is from dec 1st to march 30th and is for killed and missing/captured (about 40k killed and around 10k missing/captured). As for the material losses I completely agree, the problem on that part is the fact that the germans don't stand and fight (coupled with the withdrawal of mainly panzer units) and they won't take the material losses suffered historically. I'm not having a problem with "A blizzard rule" as there needs to be one to make sure the momentum/initiative switches between sides, I just feel the current one defeats the purposes of attempting to hold the lines and thus puts the game in a state where the soviet player can't inflict the kind losses that should be there.

On a sidenote though, even if they suffered 100k losses average per month that still only gets them to 400k, which is still half of what I take versus a crappy AI, atleast 2.5x to 3x lower than what I would take against an average human player if I attempted to hold the line.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T While I still say the game favours the Sov's I don't agree the Blizzard is as overpowered as what people are saying. The problem with a few recent games where the Blizzard O has been overwhelming is that the Axis did not do near enough damage in the summer of 41. If you have a crap summer campaign then you will and should get totally smashed up, unless ofcourse you do a 'Pelton'. People should stop blaming the Blizzard for their woes and work on improving their summer 41 game. And then work on an effective Blizzard defence. Its very doable if you have the desire and fortitude to do so.

I don't mind if the game is balanced somewhat in favour of the soviets as the game is supposed to aim at being historically accurate meaning the soviets should win atleast most of the time. What I do prefer however is a game that plays out semi historically if neither side screws up in a major way. I'm following yours and Peltons game at the moment as I like the fact he didn't take either Leningrad or Moscow as they were both historically held meaning in the case of equal opponents a somewhat historical result of the campaign (both german summer and soviet winter) should be completed. Unfortunately I do believe that Peltons withdrawal is not as foolish as some people may think and it will likely show how much the game relies on the blizzard campaign to get the germans to a state where the game will eventually turn against them.

In essence, what I am after is a blizzard rule which puts the momentum in the hands of the soviets but still leaves the german player strong enough to actually want to try and hold ground as it will give a better reflection on historical events as the entire point of the game is to fight, not see who can run the fastests in a snow storm.

In fact it was. When the game was fresh and new the Germans were utterly trashed AND they were truly weak during spring (no Axis offensive madness).

I may misunderstand but are you saying the blizzard has been revised since the release as I have been unable to see any changes in the patch notes addressing it. If that is the case then please refer me to the section/patch where it was so that I am aware of the current state of the blizzard rule as I'm basically just aware of the rule as stated in the manual pre any changes.

I'm afraid I can't do that. I simply can't remember what patch fixed what If anything, I remember the pre 1.5 patches allowed to build fortifications rather quickly. That didn't save Leningrad, for example, but it perhaps mattered in 1942, when the Red Army had time to dig (no spring madness, as the Germans were way too weak -as per history by the way). These über fortifications, along with higher Soviet morale made a German summer offensive during 1942 really complicated if not impossible.

I don't think its foolish either, just a rather boring delay of the inevitable IMO. Time will tell. Perhaps at least some excitment will ensue in 1942.

I will agree to that, it would have been alot more fun (even as a spectator) to see you guys duke it out but if Pelton feels his summer campaign wasn't strong enough to land him in a position to defend then I can understand his position. I'll stick my neck out and predict a draw though so Pelton sure is going to have to pull something from his sleeve to not disappoint me .

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus I'm afraid I can't do that. I simply can't remember what patch fixed what If anything, I remember the pre 1.5 patches allowed to build fortifications rather quickly. That didn't save Leningrad, for example, but it perhaps mattered in 1942, when the Red Army had time to dig (no spring madness, as the Germans were way too weak -as per history by the way). These über fortifications, along with higher Soviet morale made a German summer offensive during 1942 really complicated if not impossible.

I'll go over the changes again and see if I can find it, as for the failed quote it was supposed to be from Klydon but my copy/pasting skills were apparently not up to the task today (fixed it none the less).

ORIGINAL: mevstedt I'll go over the changes again and see if I can find it, as for the failed quote it was supposed to be from Klydon but my copy/pasting skills were apparently not up to the task today (fixed it none the less).

Trust me. I have been more or less reading the AARs since the release of this game and those first blizzards were utter massacres.

Something was done, but in fact what matters is what I said. No matter how hard you kick the Germans in the goin the Wehrmacht will have most of the time above 3 million (3.2, 3.3) men after the Blizzard Massacres.

Before the usual thing was 2.6 or 2.7 million, a really trashed Wehrmacht.

That's why I said the Germans are being artifically inflated. So in fact, even if the difference is not that big, indirectly they "fixed" this thing (by inflating the Germans).

While I still say the game favours the Sov's I don't agree the Blizzard is as overpowered as what people are saying. The problem with a few recent games where the Blizzard O has been overwhelming is that the Axis did not do near enough damage in the summer of 41. If you have a crap summer campaign then you will and should get totally smashed up, unless ofcourse you do a 'Pelton'. People should stop blaming the Blizzard for their woes and work on improving their summer 41 game. And then work on an effective Blizzard defence. Its very doable if you have the desire and fortitude to do so.

As you know, its easy for even a total newbie like me to keep SHC losses under 2.5 million during summer and a cake walk holding Moscow.

I am still figuring out how to hold Leningrad, but again as you already know Leningrad really is meaningless to the big picture. SHC simply has to hold the bottle nexk and river next to leningrad. Finland can easly be removed in 43.

There are many SHC players that hold Leningrad now and now many learning how to exploit the current blizzard ruleset.

A better 41 summer vs and equal is not possible, an historical 41 is. Thats simply the facts.

The other fact is the blizzard simply is about 200% to 300% over powered.

As of now 700 to 1 million deaths during December to Feb is not that hard to get. Historicaly the germans lost 350,000 in those 3 months and thats on the high side.

A historical fact is that the only large formations to surrender during the blizzard were russians.

The blizzard is clearly based on The Lord of The Rings and not history.

Pelton, just because no Germans surrendered in 1941 historically does not mean it should not happen in the game. Is that not one of the reasons why we play. Surely you don't suggest we are all placed in an historical sandbox no matter how bad or well we play?

If a German plays poorly in 1941 and his opponent plays well then he should get smashed. The game should not be idiot proof. When we play the return game I will show you how to fight a blizzard O. It will begin on turn 1 :)

@mevstedt: The big change to the blizzard was the introduction of what month it was meaning something. The effects of the original blizzard were not changed during the entire winter, so conditions were the same. Changes introduced included a reduction of the blizzard effect on German formations starting the 1st of January and a further reduction starting the 1st of February. This reflected German countermeasures/learning when it came to the blizzard and in general, German resistance will stiffen as the winter wears on.

ORIGINAL: mevstedt I'm following yours and Peltons game at the moment as I like the fact he didn't take either Leningrad or Moscow as they were both historically held meaning in the case of equal opponents a somewhat historical result of the campaign (both german summer and soviet winter) should be completed.

I wouldn't read that much into a single game, especially not into such a peculiar one. Pretty sure if Pelton had stayed true to his former tactics, and taken a more direct route instead of putting his Wehrmacht thru the worst-possible terrain with announcement, Leningrad would have been his as usual and that would have changed the rest of the game as well.

The value of his new withdrawal strategy... I agree, it is not that clear to see yet. I lean towards "huge mistake", though, if Michael holds tight and exploits it pragmatically.

ORIGINAL: Michael T While I still say the game favours the Sov's I don't agree the Blizzard is as overpowered as what people are saying. The problem with a few recent games where the Blizzard O has been overwhelming is that the Axis did not do near enough damage in the summer of 41. If you have a crap summer campaign then you will and should get totally smashed up, unless ofcourse you do a 'Pelton'. People should stop blaming the Blizzard for their woes and work on improving their summer 41 game. And then work on an effective Blizzard defence. Its very doable if you have the desire and fortitude to do so.

It's definitely a mixed bag, but I also note that we often keep comparing apples with oranges to form our expectations -- at least many of us here. Overall you are right that if you compare how the Wehrmacht looks like in an average GC41 AAR come late spring to the state in the GC42 start, you'll be shocked how poor the Germans must have fared historically.

With that measure blizzard may look ok or even weak, but the result is also bought in a completely different way. If everyone would just hold tight across the majority of the front, and slug it out brute force under the present rules (instead of front line corrections, withdrawals and excessive winter quartering), things would also look much different. As someone said, even against AI this is tough, and in fact I can say if you cling tight to hexes at the risk of being overlapped (just as Germans did historically), it quickly gets really bad (at morale settings 110-118%).

Moreover, and more importantly, the prerequisites were very different for the more or partially less successful Russian blizzard offensive that we all have read about than for the ones that we know are almost always successful in this game. Even German major formations are pocketed and surrender, which "ought to be hard or unlikely" from comparison to historical performances.

This plays directly towards the issue with the German state come late spring, some 200 tanks ready, German transport pools depleted, and many of the infantry divisions being well below full ToE as well, so low that essentially 2 AG were unable to mount more than just local, short-lived tactical offensives.

The course for this to happen, and thus, for the blizzard offensive we know, was that the Germans struck much harder, more relentless, and were pushed much harder by the Soviets, than in a typical game. Whatever the reasons, hindsight, today's change in mentality towards losses, or of doctrines, or game mechanics, or simply that a player at home will not act as if he himself was at stake.

But the result was that by December, the Germans were bled rather white in terms of offensive power, and the tank strength at that point was already just a fraction of the ToE -- prior to the blizzard offensive! No Axis player will go about so harsh here, he often doesn't even need to as Moscow falls cheaper than that. We have hindsight, experiences the Germans hadn't had, and we now that war won't be won with that. Given that, we are likely never going to replicate the same stupid mistakes or short-sighted strategies that brought the Wehrmacht in such an extremely dangerous, overextended and weakened situation. The Red Army of course also had paid its toll, but it managed its reinforcements and forces better just prior to December so it was getting ready to exploit the weak Axis state.

In game, in contrast, where players are unlikely to replicate that, the shift of initiative is forced on by measures like the combat penalties. Those are pronounced enough that more or less independent of the previous successes or losses, the Soviet player "gets his blizzard offensive". Whether it would have manifested under such a reality, or not. It is a fixed event, forced to be almost always there and biased towards success. Even if the Axis player went about preparations cautiously, not over-extended supply lines and creating dangerous bulges and flanks, and preserving his strength to a >80% full Wehrmacht.

The issue is that under such circumstances, one should expect a blizzard offensive to be way less successful. If not even to not materialize on grand scale at all. And surely to be less successful at destroying major Axis formations. Most Axis units should probably be able to stand their ground, not mention surviving in supplied pockets... Combat penalties yes, but how much?

To see a blizzard offensive just as powerful as the historical ones, similar prerequisites should be met. And that would mean giving the Axis incentive to essentially strain his forces to the breaking point, despite hindsight telling war wouldn't end at Moscow. Maybe make Moscow+LG+Rostov a "sudden death target set" only exactly until 12/41 (however, check the balance carefully..-). Sort of force on counter-intuitive mistakes on them like we aim to force some on the Soviets to make fighting forward during summer 41 against military/strategic considerations.

As the ruleset stands now, I wouldn't want to know how a blizzard offensive would turn out with historical force dispositions and strengths, and denying any large scale withdrawal. If I had to bet, I would go with my gut feeling and bet on "game over" for Axis by spring.

German casualties overstated during the blizzard to compensate for their unrealistically low losses during the summer campaign. The whole 1941 campaign just doesn't work that well.

And I still don't understand how Pelton says that a German army which retreats two hexes per turn will still lose 50 units during the blizzard? That should only work if they retreat two hexes per turn AND leaves gaps in their line, otherwise the Sov infantry can't attack and the Sov tank/cav units can't do enough damage on their own. I just don't see it...

German casualties overstated during the blizzard to compensate for their unrealistically low losses during the summer campaign. The whole 1941 campaign just doesn't work that well.

This has been said lately but it is not true. The German losses during Barbarossa were 0.8 or 0.9 million. The game is perfect here as these are the average losses in almost every game. Am I missing something?

On the other hand Soviet losses are necessarily lower than the historical losses. With the current numbers and counters it's absolutely impossible to lose historical losses. Ergo, it is absolutely impossible to fight like the Soviets.

Pelton, just because no Germans surrendered in 1941 historically does not mean it should not happen in the game. Is that not one of the reasons why we play. Surely you don't suggest we are all placed in an historical sandbox no matter how bad or well we play?

If a German plays poorly in 1941 and his opponent plays well then he should get smashed. The game should not be idiot proof. When we play the return game I will show you how to fight a blizzard O. It will begin on turn 1 :)

ORIGINAL: Michael T While I still say the game favours the Sov's I don't agree the Blizzard is as overpowered as what people are saying. The problem with a few recent games where the Blizzard O has been overwhelming is that the Axis did not do near enough damage in the summer of 41. If you have a crap summer campaign then you will and should get totally smashed up, unless ofcourse you do a 'Pelton'. People should stop blaming the Blizzard for their woes and work on improving their summer 41 game. And then work on an effective Blizzard defence. Its very doable if you have the desire and fortitude to do so.

It's definitely a mixed bag, but I also note that we often keep comparing apples with oranges to form our expectations -- at least many of us here. Overall you are right that if you compare how the Wehrmacht looks like in an average GC41 AAR come late spring to the state in the GC42 start, you'll be shocked how poor the Germans must have fared historically.

With that measure blizzard may look ok or even weak, but the result is also bought in a completely different way. If everyone would just hold tight across the majority of the front, and slug it out brute force under the present rules (instead of front line corrections, withdrawals and excessive winter quartering), things would also look much different. As someone said, even against AI this is tough, and in fact I can say if you cling tight to hexes at the risk of being overlapped (just as Germans did historically), it quickly gets really bad (at morale settings 110-118%).

Moreover, and more importantly, the prerequisites were very different for the more or partially less successful Russian blizzard offensive that we all have read about than for the ones that we know are almost always successful in this game. Even German major formations are pocketed and surrender, which "ought to be hard or unlikely" from comparison to historical performances.

This plays directly towards the issue with the German state come late spring, some 200 tanks ready, German transport pools depleted, and many of the infantry divisions being well below full ToE as well, so low that essentially 2 AG were unable to mount more than just local, short-lived tactical offensives.

The course for this to happen, and thus, for the blizzard offensive we know, was that the Germans struck much harder, more relentless, and were pushed much harder by the Soviets, than in a typical game. Whatever the reasons, hindsight, today's change in mentality towards losses, or of doctrines, or game mechanics, or simply that a player at home will not act as if he himself was at stake.

But the result was that by December, the Germans were bled rather white in terms of offensive power, and the tank strength at that point was already just a fraction of the ToE -- prior to the blizzard offensive! No Axis player will go about so harsh here, he often doesn't even need to as Moscow falls cheaper than that. We have hindsight, experiences the Germans hadn't had, and we now that war won't be won with that. Given that, we are likely never going to replicate the same stupid mistakes or short-sighted strategies that brought the Wehrmacht in such an extremely dangerous, overextended and weakened situation. The Red Army of course also had paid its toll, but it managed its reinforcements and forces better just prior to December so it was getting ready to exploit the weak Axis state.

In game, in contrast, where players are unlikely to replicate that, the shift of initiative is forced on by measures like the combat penalties. Those are pronounced enough that more or less independent of the previous successes or losses, the Soviet player "gets his blizzard offensive". Whether it would have manifested under such a reality, or not. It is a fixed event, forced to be almost always there and biased towards success. Even if the Axis player went about preparations cautiously, not over-extended supply lines and creating dangerous bulges and flanks, and preserving his strength to a >80% full Wehrmacht.

The issue is that under such circumstances, one should expect a blizzard offensive to be way less successful. If not even to not materialize on grand scale at all. And surely to be less successful at destroying major Axis formations. Most Axis units should probably be able to stand their ground, not mention surviving in supplied pockets... Combat penalties yes, but how much?

To see a blizzard offensive just as powerful as the historical ones, similar prerequisites should be met. And that would mean giving the Axis incentive to essentially strain his forces to the breaking point, despite hindsight telling war wouldn't end at Moscow. Maybe make Moscow+LG+Rostov a "sudden death target set" only exactly until 12/41 (however, check the balance carefully..-). Sort of force on counter-intuitive mistakes on them like we aim to force some on the Soviets to make fighting forward during summer 41 against military/strategic considerations.

As the ruleset stands now, I wouldn't want to know how a blizzard offensive would turn out with historical force dispositions and strengths, and denying any large scale withdrawal. If I had to bet, I would go with my gut feeling and bet on "game over" for Axis by spring.

Thats 1/2 the story as history shows.

Come spring the germans had far far more tanks then in most games, they bounced back stronger and faster then in most if not all games.

So yes sure most games have more tanks then historical by March, but most games still end up with less tanks by June then historical.

Tanks really are not really that important anyways, they are glass tigers for both sides.

This has been said lately but it is not true. The German losses during Barbarossa were 0.8 or 0.9 million. The game is perfect here as these are the average losses in almost every game. Am I missing something?

Hi TD,

Can i ask what u define as Barbarossa?

I ask cuz i was looking at german manpower numbers a couple of months back and was at same time looking at losses in game. To see if they were higher than historic to make up for the higher manpower rates in game than historic. I toke at that time the 15 most recent AARs with any loss rates given as datapoints, to try and avoid any bias. Aka random AARs. Except 3 outliers the remaining 12 games at turn 25ish all had very similar casulty rates for axis. All within 60 or 70K of each other and some what below 0.8- 0.9 millions. Rather close to half of that. Thats even not all german as the combined is for axis and therefor not only german losses. For reference after the blizzard/start of summer 42 the losses tended to be around 200-300k higher than historic(this includes some bad blizzards for germans), but at that time, as the replacement rates is around milion over historic so more than making up the deficent. Any how that why IMO we tend to see 3.3+ million german armies summer 42 armies.

The in game replacement and reinforcement simply outstrips the historic ones with about a mio man by then. So even if u take 200-300k man loses extra in the blizzard as surrended manpower u still come out very much atop, from a purely manpower POV.